Techno--I have to agree with CB here--a relatively small amount of the overall Federal budget is spent on welfare for the truly poor, and most of that sustains children. See this link: http://www.ourdime.us/102/budgetinfo/how-much-do-we-spend-on-welfare/ for a conclusion that about $191 billion, or 5% of the Federal budget, is spent on the poor. A far cry from Ronald Reagan's rallying cry of Welfare queens. Most of the $533 million spent on "income security" goes to people who would be characterized as non-poverty, at least until they lost their jobs. Let's compare that $191 billion, about 60% of which goes for kids, to the military: $718 billion; Social Security $731 billion; Medicare, Medicaid and CHIP: $769 billion--2/3 for Medicare, which is largely a middle-class benefit. http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258

Now it is a tragedy when babies have babies, whatever class, and when young women who grew up poor and without enough attention, doubly a tragedy. Of the more than 400 kids I have worked with in the past 7 years, every great kid had a great mother. Every one. Those mothers nurtured their kids with love, set high expectations, valued education, and got their child to school fed, rested and on time. I don't worry about those kids, they are easy to teach, they do well in any education system, and if they struggle to learn to read or math they know not to quit. That cuts across race, creed, class, and whether or not there is a father around too--and is far more important than what some here call "work ethic."

I have also worked with kids who had mothers that didn't know how to treat children (or adults), whose mother had abandoned the family, had substance abuse problems, and where there was a family member in gangster life. I know that throwing money at huge social dysfunction is no guarantee of success; in 6 hours a day no teacher can overcome the allure of a gangster step dad who sends you to your fifth grade graduation in a limousine. But I know that some programs, particularly with reading and smaller class size are effective, and such programs are being cut and class sizes increased virtually everywhere.

None of these kids is going to benefit from Roc's church, or your assurances that the Republican cuts sought by Ryan and supported by Romney won't hurt children. That's just not true. It is a complete fallacy that charity can replace government programs. The floods in New Orleans disproportionately affected poor African Americans. Charitable donations were less than 10% of the need--while Bush's administration tolerated utter incompetence at the political appointee level and sweetheart deals (remember the trailers?) for Bush cronies.

Read some factual material about poverty, and where the real costs in the Federal budget and local government budgets (police and fire, not welfare) are--and then look at some non-partisan analysis of what Ryan proposes. Billions more in tax reductions for billionaires, and billions less for poor children.

Actually he is half black, and if he was ever in his office and not endlessly on the campaign trail we may be in a better place now. His leadership skills are non existent. Divide and Blame, that's what he is good at. In one of the roughest patches in our history he Chooses to divide, demonize the rich, demonize corporate America, and dig us deeper into the hole, maybe you have a better theory. His mentors must be proud.
Your scrutiny comment is the most laughable, he has got a free pass from the liberal media , was never vetted , and is completely unqualified.Not to mention zero executive experience, never met a payroll, never saw a balance sheet, but we put him in charge of the biggest budget on earth. And what a complete failure he has proven to be.
You can choose to believe whatever you like, personal I think he has been less than honest about his vision of this countries past and future.

Besides the half black part, are you talking about Paul Ryan or Barrack Obama?

obama announces he will do hard hitting interview with Glamour magazine, and that's just a week after the grueling interview with Entertainment Tonight. I don't know how he does it.

Obama did an interview with the despicable Bill O'Reilly, who toally disrespected him by constantly interrupting him. Can you imagine your hero , George "Mr. 31%" Bush , doing an interview with a prominent liberal journalist?

obama announces he will do hard hitting interview with Glamour magazine, and that's just a week after the grueling interview with Entertainment Tonight. I don't know how he does it.

Obama went on Fox, to be interviewed by Bill O'Reilly (when BillO interrupted the President some 47 times -- how abrasive and disrespectful is that?). Obama handled BillO's pugilistic confrontationalism--bullying--with calm aplomb.

The reforms have been significantly watered down over the last several years, and as Rector explained on Tuesday, they touched only one of dozens of federal welfare programs:

Quote:

The public is almost totally unaware of the size and scope of government spending on the poor. This is because Congress and the mainstream media always discuss welfare in a fragmented, piecemeal basis. Each of the 79 programs is debated in isolation as if it were the only program affecting the poor. This piecemeal approach to welfare spending perpetuates the myth that spending on the poor is meager and grows little, if at all.

In reality, welfare programs are costing taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars each year. In fiscal year 2011, total welfare costs equaled $927 billion ($717 billion from the federal government and $210 billion from states).

I don't claim to know all that much about the welfare programs, and just how much is meaningful and how much is waste (non productive), but I don't have much faith in Obama or for our government in general.

O'reilly was not about to let barry the fraud control the interview with spin, lies , and deception, great interview. Bret Bears was even better, it showed what a thin shin weasel barry is.
Madcow is that the little angry carpet chomper that dresses like a boy scout, is she a journalist?

Bill, voted most trusted by Suffolk University study, if you guys watched him instead of soundbites from john stewart , and scumbag bill mayer you may see he can be very fair to barry, he just does not hide the negatives like the libs do so well. They have Anderson Copper at number two, who I do find refreshingly honest myself.

The Bill O'reilly interview during the Super Bowl was a disgrace. He interrupted the president many times, more interested in strengthening his own image then getting answers from the president. If you want to be taken seriously matty, you probably dont want to reference satiric comediens when comparing to the commentators at Fox News. And lastly, I really take offense to your verbiage concerning Rachel Maddow, it's quite offensive...maybe Pueno is right , you should have stayed in college.

HA..I just read your link, nice one. A poll of who is most trusted....since many people love Bill O, what do you think they were going to say? It's like asking people who eat at McDonalds what their favorite restaurant is. Matty, you are a joker.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou cannot download files in this forum